Lawson. Published in the Congress Proceeding, Structural Engineering Institute. May 3,2013. 1-12.

Collective Chord Behavior in Large Flexible Diaphragms

J. W. Lawson1 and C. N. Yarber2

ABSTRACT
The seismic behavior of large low-rise buildings with rigid walls and flexible
diaphragms will be dominated more by the diaphragms seismic response than by the
very stiff vertical walls. For practitioners, estimating the stiffness of large flexible
diaphragms is important for computing building setbacks from property lines and
adjacent structures as well as evaluating structural integrity under seismic loads. In
addition, researchers attempting to accurately model a buildings dynamic behavior
need to assemble an accurate diaphragm stiffness prediction. The traditional
diaphragm chord model consists of a single continuous line of axial resistance at the
diaphragm boundaries; however, as this paper will demonstrate a collective series of
structural members distributed across the diaphragm will function intentionally or
unintentionally as a collective chord, adding significant flexural stiffness and
reducing chord forces. In seismically active areas, masonry and concrete wall
anchorage forces utilize code-mandated continuous cross-ties within the diaphragm,
and often these cross-ties are sufficiently strong and stiff to unintentionally develop
collective chord behavior whether in steel or in wood diaphragm systems. While
neglecting this embedded collective chord behavior results in conservative chord and
diaphragm drift designs, researchers or practitioners trying to predict seismic
response of these buildings will potentially underestimate the true seismic response.
INTRODUCTION
The use of flexible roof diaphragms in low-rise buildings is very common in the
United States, and consists typically of either untopped steel decking or wood
structural panels across a low-slope structural roof system. Design of these
diaphragms simulates a simple beam model where the decking or wood structural
panels are assumed to provide the beams shear resistance (web action), and
designated chords are assumed to provide the beams bending resistance (flange
action). Because of the dimensions of this deep beam, both shear and flexure criteria
need to be checked during the design process, both in terms of strength and stiffness.
The need to design for both bending and shear forces is provided by ASCE 7-10
12.10.1. Additionally, the computation of diaphragm deflection is used by
practitioners to determine building setbacks from property lines and adjacent

buildings as well as investigate deformation compatibility and structural integrity

within the building per ASCE 7-10 12.12. Additionally, diaphragm deflection can be
used to investigate building stability due to P effects using ASCE 7-10 12.8.7
(SEAOC 2012).
These roof systems are very common in big-box retail, distribution warehouses, and
commercial/industrial occupancies; and are often used in conjunction with concrete
and masonry wall systems. Typically, a traditional chord model assumes a perimeter
continuous tie element at the diaphragm extreme. The design provisions also require
these heavy wall buildings to be anchored well into the roof diaphragm structure to
prevent wall-to-roof connection failures that have been common during past
earthquakes (SEAONC 2001, SEAOC 2008). These seismic design forces and
detailing requirements have increased significantly over time causing diaphragms to
become much more interconnected and robust to resist seismic wall anchorage forces.
This internal interconnection of beams and girders, called continuity ties in ASCE 7,
results in a structure that has different flexural behavior from a traditional diaphragm
chord model, and can have a substantial effect on the design and actual response of
the structure. Wall anchorage forces are required to be distributed across the
diaphragm depth with continuous cross-ties in Seismic Design Categories C and
higher (ASCE 7-10 12.11.2.2.1). These continuous cross-ties involve numerous
parallel framing members tied together to resist wall anchorage tension forces during
seismic events (Figures 1 & 2). The requirement for continuous cross-ties dates back
to the 1973 Uniform Building Code provisions introduced after observing the wall
anchorage failures from the 1971 San Fernando earthquake (SEAOC 2008) and is
implemented in large flat flexible diaphragms in high seismic regions. Designed
primarily for the wall anchorage system, these continuous cross-ties can
unintentionally also act as chord elements collectively. This is especially true in
buildings with large diaphragms where numerous repetitive interconnected beams or
joists occur in parallel as well as several or more parallel girder lines.
Other building code requirements that can potentially create unintentional collective
chord elements are the ASCE 7-10 provisions for structural integrity (1.4) and
minimum structural interconnection (12.1.3). Similar to continuous cross-ties, these
provisions require the building and diaphragm to be interconnected for robustness and
distribution of lateral forces. This interconnection of elements has a tendency to add
additional collective chord elements.
TRADITIONAL CHORD BEHAVIOR ASSUMPTION
The current state of design practice is to design flexible diaphragms using a simply
beam analogy. Chords are critical to carry the tension forces developed by the
flexural bending moments in the diaphragm under lateral load. Traditionally,
diaphragm chords are thought of as Tension/Compression force couples at the
diaphragm extreme edges. The following model and equations illustrate a traditional
chord approach for a flexible diaphragm.

Chord tension

= Diaphragm load (lbs/foot)

= Diaphragm length (feet)

= Diaphragm width (feet)

= Diaphragm moment (ft-kips)

= Chord force couple (kips)

wL2
M Diaph =
8
M Diaph
T =C =
W

w
L
W
MDiaph
T=C

Chord compression
w
L
Figure 1. Plan View of Traditional Chord Forces.
Besides resisting bending forces, chords also resist bending deformation of the
diaphragm. More specifically, the deflection of a flexible diaphragm is composed of
bending component f associated with the chords (or flanges), and a shear component
w associated with the deck (or web).
diaph = f + w
Reference design standards for both wood and steel deck diaphragms recognize this
two component approach to computing deflections (AF&PA 2009, SDI 2004). The
chord dependent bending deflection f may be computed by the following equation
from SDPWS-2008 Equation 4.2-1 (AF&PA 2009) when the traditional single chord
model is assumed.
5vL3
f =
8EAW
where:
E
A
W
L
v
f

=
=
=
=
=
=

Modulus of elasticity of chords (psi)

Area of chord cross-section (in2)
Diaphragm width (ft)
Diaphragm length (ft)
Maximum diaphragm shear in the direction under consideration (plf)
Maximum mid-span diaphragm deflection from bending (in)

COLLECTIVE CHORD BEHAVIOR

As mentioned earlier, the interconnection of the diaphragm members may result in
intentional or unintentional collective chord behavior. The efficiency of each
continuous chord element to resist bending is a function of its distance from the
diaphragms neutral axis. To analyze the forces introduced into these collective chord
elements, strain compatibility is utilized instead of a simplistic tension/compression
force couple. Assuming the behavior as linearly elastic, Figure 2 depicts a diaphragm
plan view illustrating the force distribution.
Chord tension

F0
w
L
W
MDiaph
s
Fx
F0

= Diaphragm load (lbs/foot)

= Diaphragm length (feet)
= Diaphragm width (feet)
= Diaphragm moment (ft-kips)
= Continuous tie spacing
= Force in continuity tie x
= Force in extreme tie

Chord compression
w
L
Figure 2. Collective Chord Force Distribution.
Each continuous cross-tie has a different chord force proportional to its distance from
the bending neutral axis. Simple equations may be derived for the design engineer to
compute the reduced forces (Lawson 2007). To simplify the equation presentation,
the various continuous cross-ties forces Fx can be expressed in terms of the extreme
cross-ties force F0. For example, the first tie inward from the diaphragms extreme
tie has a force F1, and for all ties the force may be expressed as Fx:
W
F1 = F0

2
W

s
2

W
F x = F0

2
W

sx
2

2sx

= F0 1

EQ. 1

Equation 1 defines the force in each chord element relative to the extreme (traditional
chord) element. When sx > W/2, the collective chord forces determined in Equation 1
go negative crossing the neutral axis. It is this point that the chord forces go from

tension to compression. Figure 3 graphically illustrates the distribution and labeling

of collective chord forces. Using statics, the following simple series is developed:
M Diaph = F0W + F1 (W s ) + F2 + F3 (W 3s )K + Fn (W ns )(W 2s )

This may be also expressed simply as a summation:

n
W
M Diaph
= F x (W sx ) where n
s
x=0

Substituting Equation 1 into Equation 2 and

simplifying:

F0
F1
F2
F3

n
2sx

M Diaph = F0 1
(W sx )
W

x=0

M Diaph =

(2s
n

F0
W

x 2 3Wsx + W 2

EQ. 2

x =0

Fn-1
Fn
Solving for F0:
F0 =

Figure 3. Collective Chord Forces.

M DiaphW

(2s x
n

3Wsx + W

where n

W
s

EQ. 3

x =0

The only variable in Equation 3 is x, and F0 can be solved by using a simple

summation in the denominator. Using some additional math, the summation in the
denominator can be simplified further for a direct solution. Simplify the denominator:

(2s
n

x 2 3Wsx + W 2

where n

x =0

x =1

x =1

x =1

W
s

= W 2 + 2s 2 x 2 3Ws x + W 2 1

n(n + 1)(2n + 1)
n(n + 1)
2
= W 2 + 2 s 2
3Ws
+W n
6
2

2
1
3
3
= s 2 n 3 + s 2 n 2 + s 2 n Wsn 2 Wsn + W 2 n + W 2
3
3
2
2
The variable n represents the number of cross-ties evenly spaced across the
diaphragm depth. This may also be expressed as the diaphragm depth divided by the

cross-tie spacing n = W/s. Substituting W/s for n, our denominator equation can be
further simplified as follows:
3

2s 2W
s 2W
s 2W 3WsW
3WsW W 2W
=
+
+

+
+W 2
3s
2s
s
3s 3
s2
2s 2
W
= (W + s )(W + 2s )
6s
Substituting the simplified summation above into Equation 3, we can solve for F0:

F0 =

6sM Diaph

(W + s )(W + 2s )

EQ. 4

Equation 4 is particularly useful in large diaphragms with high traditional chord

forces, and where numerous collective chord elements are likely to exist. Often the
resulting chord force developed in the repetitive members is less than the wall
anchorage axial design load in the members, and thus will not govern the design.
Also, recall that a diaphragms overall deflection has a bending contribution, and this
contribution is a direct function of the chord model assumed. Beginning with the
traditional deflection equation of a uniformly loaded beam, a suitable equation can be
developed that incorporates a collective chord:
f =

5wL4
384EI

All variables utilize pounds and inches. In order to accommodate more customary
units of feet for length L and pounds per linear foot for uniform load w, the bending
deflection equation is modified as follows for unit consistency:

bending

where:
w
L
E
I

w
4
5 ( L 12 )
5wL4 (1728 ) 45wL4
12
=
=
=
384EI
384EI
2EI

EQ. 5

= Applied uniform loading (plf)

= Diaphragm length (ft)
= Elastic modulus of chords (psi)
= Moment of inertia (in4)

It is desirable to have an equation in terms of the maximum diaphragm shear v (plf)

instead of the applied uniform load w in order that the diaphragm deflection of other
non-uniformly loaded conditions can be approximated.

v=

V
wL 1
=
W
2 W

or rewritten,

w=

2vW
L

where V is the diaphragm shear reaction (lbs), and W is the diaphragm width (ft).
Substituting into Equation 5:
bending =

45(2vb )L3 45vbL3

=
2EI
EI

EQ. 6

Using the parallel axis theorem for the moment of inertia, a new expression for the
collective chords moment of inertia can be derived. The moment of inertia of each
individual chord element Ix is insignificant and assumed as zero.

I = I x + Ax d x

) = (A d )
n

2
x

Using Figure 3 but replacing the force Fx with the chord area Ax, the following series
represents the collective chord moment of inertia, where s represents the uniform
spacing of the continuous chord elements.
2
2
2
2
W
W

I = A0 + A1 s + A2 2s + K + An ns
2
2

sx
= Ax
2

x=0
n

This can be simplified further by removing the summation operator. In addition, the
chord element areas can be assumed to be all equal, or conservatively consider the
smallest occurring chord element area.

s 2 n 3 s 2 n 2 s 2 n Wsn 2 Wsn W 2 n W 2
W
where n =
I = A
+
+

+
+
.
2
6
2
2
4
4
s
3
Substituting and simplifying, the following is obtained for the moment of inertia
I=

AW
(W + 2s )(W + s )
12s

EQ. 7

This expression represents the collective chord moment of inertia. Customarily the
diaphragm width W and collective chord spacings s are in feet, but the area A and
moment of inertia I are in inches2 and inches4 respectfully. To maintain consistency
of units Equation 7 is modified as follows:

I=

12AW
(W + 2s )(W + s )
s

EQ. 8

Substituting Equation 8 into Equation 7, a new bending deformation component for

horizontal diaphragms is achieved for the collective chord model.
f =

45vWL3
=
EI

45vWL3
12 AW
E
(W + 2s )(W + s )
s

15vL3 s
f =
4EA(W + 2s )(W + s )

EQ. 9

IMPACT OF COLLECTIVE CHORD BEHAVIOR

Current diaphragm design methodology by practitioners assumes a traditional chord
model, where a continuous structural element is at the diaphragm extremes to resist
the compression and tension forces from diaphragm bending. By ignoring the interior
chord elements that may participate collectively, designers and researchers should
understand the impact this may have on their work. Ignoring collective chord
behavior can be a conservative design option; however, at times it may produce
unconservative results for certain applications.
An inherent benefit of a collective chord system is the flexural redundancy advantage
over a single isolated chord. Current ASCE 7-10 provisions (12.3.4) penalize
buildings with non-redundant vertical lateral-force-resisting systems, such as shear
walls and frames, but no such provisions currently exist for horizontal diaphragms.
Researchers pondering the failure behavior of large flexible diaphragms supported by
rigid walls anticipate that the structures failure mode may occur in the diaphragm
instead of the main lateral force resisting system (rigid walls). With the consideration
of numerous collective chord elements, a flexural diaphragm failure is not likely to
govern. Instead, a shear failure mode diaphragm becomes much more likely.
Experimental research indicate that diaphragm shear failure modes seldom rupture the
deck material, but instead fail the fasteners such as nails with wood systems and
welds/screws/pins with steel deck systems (Tissell 2000, Rogers 2003)
When numerous collective chord elements engage as the diaphragm bends, the
perimeter chord force significantly reduces from the traditional model. A large
diaphragm example (480-ft square) investigated by one author found an 84%
reduction in calculated perimeter chord force when considering collective chord
behavior (Yarber 2012). Practitioners designing large diaphragms may welcome this
approach to reduce chord forces to a more manageable level.
Another benefit of the collective chord model is that diaphragm deflections are less
than that computed with a traditional chord model, because the bending portion of the
diaphragm deflection f is reduced. Depending upon the diaphragm configuration and
traditional chord design, f can be a significant contribution to the total deflection. As
mentioned earlier, ASCE 7 limits diaphragm deflections for purposes of building

setbacks and separations as well as deformation compatibility, structural integrity,

and building stability.
On the other hand, the traditional chord model may produce unconservative results
for practitioners and researchers conducting an analysis that utilizes the diaphragms
dynamic response as criteria in determining seismic forces within the building. The
development of the diaphragm deflection Equation 4.2-1 for wood structural panels
(AF&PA 2009) neglected any bending stiffness within the web structure, and thus the
stiffness will be somewhat underestimated in that regard (ATC 1981). Additionally
other researchers have found evidence that computing building or diaphragm periods
using dynamics, FEMA 356 (ASCE 41), and other analytical methods tend to
overestimate the period when compared with instrumented building records (Harris
et. al. 1998, Graf 2004) and thus underestimate the response forces. Collective chord
behavior is one source of additional stiffness that is likely contributing to this
disparity.
When using ASCE 31-03 to evaluate and/or ASCE 41-06 to rehabilitate an existing
one-story building with a flexible diaphragm, the diaphragm period is estimated based
on the computed diaphragm deflection (ASCE 31-03 4.2.2.1.2 and ASCE 41-06
3.3.1.2.3) and in turn used to compute seismic response and forces. If the diaphragm
stiffness is underestimated, ASCE 31 & 41 will underestimate the lateral force used in
evaluation and rehabilitation. Under a traditional chord model, f often contributes a
significant amount of calculated deflection to the total, potentially resulting in an
underestimation of stiffness. In heavy wall buildings with numerous collective
chords, it is the authors recommendation that the bending component of diaphragm
deflection f be assumed as zero for the purpose of computing seismic forces.
The low chord forces and high chord redundancy are likely to cause an elastic
response in at least one orthogonal direction even at maximum expected force levels
(Yarber 2012) and this can result in unexpected diaphragm force amplification.
Research indicates that the dynamic amplification associated with flexible
diaphragms is worst in the longitudinally loaded direction of buildings with large
flexible diaphragms (Harris et. al. 1998). Transverse seismic resistance begins to go
non-linear near maximum seismic loads, thus reducing the amplification, but because
tilt-up buildings are often long and narrow, diaphragm shear design is more governed
by transverse forces, resulting in conservative overstrength in the longitudinal
direction. Additionally, roof framing systems typically have the more numerous
transverse beams acting as cross-ties compared with the few longitudinal girder lines,
causing strong collective chord behavior for the longitudinal loaded direction. This
results in more elastic diaphragm behavior and thus greater force amplification in the
longitudinal direction.
Another repercussion of the collective chord model is its impact on the shear
distribution across the diaphragm width W. With bending being resisted by
distributed elements across W, the shear stresses could theoretically be 1.5V/A as in a
classic rectangular cross-section. This is one area of future research being planned.

SENSITIVITY TO CHORD CONNECTION BEHAVIOR

The bending component of diaphragm deflection increases when slip occurs in the
chord connections with a new component slip. SDPWS-2008 Equation 4.2-1
(AF&PA 2009) contains a general-use chord connection slip component when the
traditional single chord model is assumed,

slip =

X)

2W

where (CX) is the sum of individual chord splice slip values C on both sides of
the diaphragm, each multiplied by their respective distance X to the nearest lateral
support. When considering collective chord behavior, this equation must be modified;
however, todays structural chord systems usually have no slip. Steel chord systems
and continuous steel cross-tie systems are typically fastened with welds or slipcritical bolts resulting in C = 0. Continuous cross-tie systems involving wood
member framing typically utilized pre-manufactured tie-down anchors for
connections, and any slip or slack is taken out with a finger-tight nut plus 1/3 turn per
the manufacturers instructions (Simpson Strong-Tie 2013, USP 2011).
One concern to the authors was whether there was excessive flexibility or stretch
within wood-to-wood tie-down (hold-down) connections commonly used in
continuous cross-ties, preventing effective collective chord engagement. These types
of connectors are often used for seismic retrofitting of existing panelized wood roof
systems in California. An experimental testing program was conducted at Cal Poly,
San Luis Obispo, measuring strength and stiffness behavior of four common
connector assemblies, shown in Figure 4 (Yarber 2012). Simpson Strong-Tie
connectors (MST60, HDU8-S2.5, HD7B) were fastened to 3-1/8 x 27 Douglas-fir
glue-laminated (glulam) timber specimens and tested in conformance with ICC
Acceptance Criteria AC155. The Simpson Strong-tie products were used due to their
dominance in the seismic retrofit of these roof systems. The connectors and
configurations involved nails, screws, and bolts, with a variety of single-sided and
double-sided arrangements.
Based on the results of these tests, Yarber concluded that the combined glulam axial
and experimentally determined connector stiffnesses are sufficient to engage
collective chord behavior whether intentional or unintentional. In addition, it was
determined that linearly elastic behavior is likely in the hold-down connectors when
acting collectively in large buildings, even at maximum expected earthquake force
levels due to the connectors excess capacity. Thus the linear distribution of forces
relative to the diaphragms bending neutral axis is a reasonable assumption.
Continuous cross-tie connectors installed with loose nuts or slack rods were not a part
of this research and could affect whether the ties act as a chord collectively.

SeriesComparisonofForcevsDeflection
30000

Double HD7B

HDU8

Force(lbs)

25000
20000
15000

HD7B

MST60

10000
5000
0
0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

Displacement(inches)

Figure 4. Stiffness Comparisons of Various Wood Cross-tie Connectors

CONCLUSION
When a large flexible diaphragm consists of a series of interconnected elements,
consideration of a collective chord model provides a significant reduction in chord
forces and a reduction in horizontal diaphragm deflection. Often, the design of the
interconnected elements does not change under this approach because their design is
dominated more by the heavy wall anchorage provisions of the building code.
While ignoring inherent collective chord behavior is conservative for diaphragm
chord design, more research is needed to determine whether collective chord behavior
changes the distribution of shear stresses across the diaphragm depth, potentially
making todays traditional design approach for unit shear stresses unconservative.
Practitioners and researches using the diaphragms dynamic response to more
accurately determine the seismic forces acting on the building must consider the
inherent stiffening effect a collective chord model creates. Additionally, the chord
redundancy and low axial force levels will likely preclude inelastic chord behavior in
these types of buildings.
REFERENCES
American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA), (2009), Special Design Provisions
for Wind and Seismic with Commentary, 2008 Edition. Washington D.C.
Applied Technology Council (ATC), (1981), Guidelines for the Design of Horizontal
Wood Diaphragms, ATC-7, Berkeley, CA. p. 20.

Graf, T. and Malley, J. O., (2004), Evaluation and Application of Concrete Tilt-up
Assessment Methodologies, PEER 2004/03, Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, University of California, Berkeley.
Harris, S. K. et al. (1998). Response of Tilt-up Buildings to Seismic Demands: Case
Studies from the 1994 Northridge Earthquake. Proceedings of the NEHRP
Conference and Workshop on Research on the Northridge, California
Earthquake of January 17, 1994. California (now Consortium of) Universities
for Research in Earthquake Engineering (CUREE), Richmond, CA.
Lawson, J. W. (2007), Thinking Outside the Box: New approaches to very large
flexible diaphragms, SEAOC 2007 Convention Proceedings, Structural
Engineers Association of California, Squaw Valley, CA.
Rogers, C. and Tremblay, R. (2003). Inelastic Seismic Response of Frame Fasteners
for Steel Roof Deck Diaphragms. J. Struct. Eng., ASCE, 129(12), p. 1647.
Simpson Strong-Tie (2013), Wood Construction Connectors 2013-2014, Pleasanton,
CA. pp. 46-50
Steel Deck Institute (SDI), (2004). Diaphragm Design Manual, Third Edition, Fox
River Grove, IL.
Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), (2008), Tilt-Up
Buildings, The SEAOC Blue Book: Seismic Design Recommendations,
SEAOC
Seismology
Committee,
Sacramento,
CA.
http://www.seaoc.org/bluebook (January 3, 2013).
Structural Engineers Association of California (SEAOC), (2012). Design Example
5: Tilt-up Building, 2009 IBC Structural/Seismic Design Manual Vol. 2,
Sacramento, CA.
Structural Engineers Association of Northern California (SEAONC), (2001).
Guidelines for Seismic Evaluation and Rehabilitation of Tilt-up Buildings and
Other Rigid Wall / Flexible Diaphragm Structures. San Francisco, CA.
Tissell, J. R., and Elliott, J. R. (2000). Plywood Diaphragms Report 138, APA
The Engineered Wood Association, Tacoma, WA.
USP, (2011). USP Professional Design Manual and Product Catalog 56th Ed.,
United Steel Products Co., Burnsville, MN. pp. 36-40.
Yarber, C. N., (2012). Experimental Determination of the Stiffness and Strength of
Continuity Tie Connections in Large Wood Roof Diaphragms, and Impact on
the Collective Chord Model, Thesis (M.S.), California Polytechnic State
University, San Luis Obispo.